Re: [Qestion] Is preempt_disable/enable needed in non-preemption code path

From: Xu, Yanfei
Date: Thu Apr 15 2021 - 12:18:56 EST




On 4/15/21 11:43 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:04:05PM +0800, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
Hi experts,

I am learning rcu mechanism and its codes. When looking at the
rcu_blocking_is_gp(), I found there is a pair preemption disable/enable
operation in non-preemption code path. And it has been a long time. I can't
understand why we need it? Is there some thing I missed? If not, can we
remove the unnecessary operation like blow?

Good point, you are right that preemption is disabled anyway in that block
of code. However, preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() also prevent the
compiler from moving that READ_ONCE() around. So my question to you is
whether it is safe to remove those statements entirely or whether they
should instead be replaced by barrier() or similar.

Thanks for your reply! :)

Yes, preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() defined in !preemption are barrier(). barrier can prevent from reordering that READ_ONCE(), but base on my current understanding, volatile in READ_ONCE can also tell the compiler not to reorder it. So, I think it's safe?

Best regards,
Yanfei


Thanx, Paul

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index da6f5213fb74..c6d95a00715e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -3703,7 +3703,6 @@ static int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void)
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPTION))
return rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE;
might_sleep(); /* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */
- preempt_disable();
/*
* If the rcu_state.n_online_cpus counter is equal to one,
* there is only one CPU, and that CPU sees all prior accesses
@@ -3718,7 +3717,6 @@ static int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void)
* Those memory barriers are provided by CPU-hotplug code.
*/
ret = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.n_online_cpus) <= 1;
- preempt_enable();
return ret;
}



Best regards,
Yanfei